Hey look, the NYT followed my global warming story

A couple of months ago I wrote a story about how some climate scientists had become concerned about increasing alarmism in the global warming debate, much of it sparked by Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. Today the New York Times has a very similar story.

Chronicle:

In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

“Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,” says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Times:

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

Chronicle:

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore’s global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina’s devastation is a major theme in the film.

Times:

In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

I’ll admit that it’s nice to be followed by the Times, as I have sometimes found myself chasing Andy Revkin on the climate issue. And I have great admiration for science writing by Bill Broad, the author of this article.

With that being said, it’s an interesting point in the climate change debate. There have been a lot of recent articles about the “persecution” of global warming skeptics, enough so that perhaps the public now has a measure of sympathy for them. What the heck do I mean here? What I’m suggesting is that the media, myself included, now has an appetite for stories about legitimate scientists who reject the consensus.

I think those kinds of news articles, and others such as this one in the Times, might embolden skeptics — if that many truly exist — to come forward and speak freely.

Whether they have a persuasive case to make is another issue entirely.

57 Responses

One should be pleased that majority views are difficult to overturn. Otherwise we’d all have to believe in UFO’s. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anybody who cries ‘conspiracy’ has immediately lost all credibility, in my view.

True Tex, I suspect you will see nothing about this debate in the mainstream media, too embarrassing and offensive to their beliefs and world views. This will be buried and will have never happened.

I am not advocating for overturning some alleged majority view here, I would be perfectly happy if the alleged majority would actually recognize the alleged minority exists and accept that the majority are not the sole purveyors of the truth and science here. To actually recognize honest and credible doubt and uncertainty would be fine with me, but that is not allowed in the AGW believer’s world, scientist and political scientist alike will never go there, for obvious reasons.